SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2017
Workplace.ca HomeWorkplace.ca TrainingWorkplace.ca LawsWorkplace Today Workplace.ca ResourcesWorkplace.ca EventsWorkplace.ca LibraryWorkplace.ca EncyclopediaWorkplace.ca AdvertisingContact Workplace.ca




Take a look at Workplace Today® for workplace news. Each month you'll benefit from well-researched legal information, detailed case studies on timely issues and concise reporting on today's labour trends from the best in the business. In short, a wealth of fresh information for today's managers and supervisors. Subscribe today!

Online Magazine
Subscribe
This Month
Archives
Free Preview

Click here for permission to reprint this article

Renew your Online Subscription!




features
features
When Can You Fire an Employee for Behavior In the Bedroom?
Alan Riddell and Kyle Van Schie

When can employees be terminated because of their sexual proclivities? Does the law entitle you to dismiss a latter-day Marquis de Sade who is careful to confine his deviant sexual predilections to the privacy of his own home? This is one of several questions raised in light of the recent scandal involving former CBC employee, Jian Ghomeshi.

In 1967, Canada’s then Justice Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, famously remarked that “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” Half a century later, many HR professionals assume that the legal corollary of this longstanding public policy is that the employer must similarly have no place in the bedrooms of its employees.

In fact, that widely held assumption is largely mistaken. Shockingly, in 2015, a majority of Ontario employees can still be arbitrarily terminated for extra-curricular sexual activities which offend the moral standards of their employers, even when such activities occur outside the workplace and have absolutely no impact on anyone’s job performance or co-workers. Only a small minority of Ontarians enjoy legal immunity from termination on these arbitrary grounds.

In this regard, the law is convoluted and distinguishes between no less than 3 categories of employees, based in part on their employment status, their sexual orientation, and the type of sex in which they choose to engage.

1. Employees who cannot be terminated for their private extra-curricular sexual behavior, no matter what the circumstances (or almost!):

This first category comprises employees who engage in gay or lesbian sex outside the workplace, and whose sexual preferences are explicitly protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Back in the 1960s, such private, homosexual behavior was not only grounds for dismissal but was also a criminal offence. Today, any employer who tries to terminate an employee for displaying an active homosexual lifestyle, at work or at home, would almost certainly find itself hit with a Human Rights Complaint, and ultimately, an Order reinstating the employee to his or her job with full back-pay and human rights’ damages.

Admittedly, no such outcome could ensue if the employee also engaged in some serious criminal act during his or her extracurricular sexual escapades – just as Luka Magnotta sensationally did in murdering, and then dismembering, his sexual partner after having sex with him. Obviously, no Human Rights Tribunal is likely to order any employer to reinstate any employee, be he gay or straight, who commits such a horrific crime.

2. Employees who can only be terminated for their private extra-curricular sexual behavior if that behavior is either very serious or negatively impacts on the employer:

This second category includes most unionized employees and most non-unionized federally regulated (non-managerial) employees. Most unionized employees are protected by collective agreements making it impossible to fire them in the absence of just cause. Similarly, non-unionized federally regulated (non-managerial) employees, in the private sector, who have been employed for a year or more, are protected by Section 240 the Canada Labour Code which requires the employer to show that their dismissal is “just.” As a unionized CBC employee, Jian Ghomeshi is one of a small minority of Canadians who falls into this second category of people who cannot be terminated except for just cause.

Employees within this second category can only be terminated, on the grounds of sexual behaviour, in three extreme situations:

  • (i) where their behaviour spills over into the workplace, significantly damaging workplace relations'
  • (ii) where it has no impact on the workplace but involves some serious criminal offence
  • (iii) where it falls short of a criminal offence but nonetheless harms the employer’s public reputation or commercial "brand."

    An example of the latter two situations is provided by the court decision in Kelly v. Linamar Corporation, where a judge held that the employer had just cause for firing an employee who was caught downloading child porn in the privacy of his own home (a serious criminal offense), and whose actions were subsequently reported publicly in the media, thereby damaging the employer’s public reputation.

    Ghomeshi’s sexual behaviour is alleged to have overlapped all three of these situations; it is alleged to have included sexually aggressive statements to a subordinate on his show while at work, to have involved the criminal offence of sexual assault, and to have damaged the public reputation of his program “Q”, and of the CBC’s “brand’.

    In order to win a wrongful dismissal grievance against the CBC, Ghomeshi would therefore have to do more than just prove that he never sexually harassed a female subordinate on the set of “Q”, or that the women whom he dated actually consented to being physically assaulted. He will also have to persuade an arbitrator that his admitted appetite for violent forms of sex – even if consensual and confined to the privacy of his own home – could not reasonably be expected to do serious harm to the CBC’s reputation and brand. Ultimately, this third hurdle may ultimately prove to be just as difficult for him to overcome as the first two.

    3. Employees who can be immediately terminated for their private extra-curricular sexual behaviour, no matter what the circumstances:

    This third category includes all employees who do not fall into either of the first two categories – namely all private sector, heterosexual, provincially-regulated, non-unionized employees. This group comprises an overwhelming majority of Ontario’s workforce. If their employers can establish that their extra-curricular sexual behaviour was non-consensual and therefore criminal, or that such behaviour was highly damaging to the employer’s public reputation or brand, then those employers can immediately terminate these employees for just cause and without notice or pay in lieu of notice.

    If an employer cannot establish any of these three things, it can still terminate employees who fall into this third category so long as it provides them with pay in lieu of notice. If the employment agreement contains a well- drafted termination clause, this can often amount to only a few weeks’ salary.

    Essentially this means that an employer who provides pay in lieu of notice can freely dismiss this third category of employees for sexual behaviour which it disapproves of, even if that behaviour occurred offsite and had absolutely no impact on work performance or the employer’s reputation. It can do so for no better reason than it finds the employee’s behaviour to be personally distasteful or inimical to its own conservative social values.

    Employees can be terminated in this way simply because they frequented strip joints on their lunch hours, or joined ‘swinger clubs’, or attended Saturday night ‘cross-dressing parties with which the employer personally disapproved.

    On this narrow legal issue, Ontario employment law therefore remains far more antiquated and puritanical than many HR experts currently assume it to be. In this sense, the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and Prime Minister Trudeau’s progressive policy statements of half a century ago, have had surprisingly little impact on the legal rights of most employers and employees.

    Alan Riddell and Kyle Van Schie are Ottawa lawyers who specialize in labour and employment law and who work at the law firm of Soloway Wright LLP.



  • This Month
    viewpoints
    Being Responsible is a Good Thing


    features
    Turning Disabilities into Opportunities

    When Can You Fire an Employee for Behavior In the Bedroom?



    law
    Employee With Fixed-Term Contract Entitled to More Than Minimum Notice

    Nurse’s Discipline Reduced After Abusing Paraplegic Patient

    Man With Brain Defect Awarded $15,000 for Discrimination


    strategies
    Staff Celebrations Come at a Cost to Workers

    Organizations. Struggling to Develop Leaders


    news
    Federal Public Service Unions United in Defense of Collective Bargaining Rights

    Minister Leitch tables ILO Convention in House of Commons

    Fed. Gov’t. Enhances Compassionate Care Benefits

    Fed. Gov’t. Appoints New Members to Occupational Health and Safety Centre

    With Budget Balanced, It’s Time to Focus on Canada’s Economic Future, Business Leaders Say

    HRPA Partnership Helps Employers Build Accessible Workplaces

    Cdn. Employers Launch National Initiative on Workplace Learning and Development

    New Certificate Program for Managers to Address Mental Health

    Winners of First Indigenous Workplace Inclusion Leadership Awards Announced

    Understanding the Signs of Bullying and Domestic Violence in the Workplace

    Innovation and Technology Will Increase ROI with Workplace Training, Report

    Cdn. Businesses Not Ready for Disruption Caused by New Technologies, Report


    news
    BC: Supporting Employment in the Classroom and the Workplace

    SK: Make Safety a Habit - NAOSH Week Proclaimed

    MB: Prov. Announces New Skilled Trades and Tech Centre

    MB: Prov. Improves Access to Engineering and Geoscience Jobs

    NB: 200 Days: Action to Create Jobs

    ON: Prov. Ensuring Workers Understand Rights and Obligations

    ON: New Resource to Improve Job Opps. for People with Developmental Disabilities

    NL: Prov. Releases Job Vacancy Report

    NT: Gov.t Announces Exemption to Temporary Foreign Worker Program

    NT: Youth Mentorship for Tourism Program launched


    shoptalk
    Prevalence of Poor Mental Health is Higher in the Workplace Than in General Population

    I Want To Leave Work Early To Pick Up My Child. Does My Employer Have To Accommodate Me?



    Warning: No part of workplace.ca may be copied or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of the Institute of Professional Management. Workplace Today®, HR Today®, Recruiting Today®, and Supervision Today® are trademarks of the Institute of Professional Management.

    For permission to reprint, please click here.
     





    © IPM Management Training and Development Corporation 1984-2017 All Rights Reserved
    IPM Management Training and Development Corporation dba IPM- Institute of Professional Management